As I said, I'm in a public sector union and I did try to refute it -- it isn't true. I also know from my father that teachers unions do not have a tremendous amount of power, and that politicians do not enter into it. Perhaps that's different in NYC, but it is not the case in NJ. There are politicians that are in support of unions, but most politicians EVERYWHERE are paid off by business and that is generally diametrically opposed to unions.
You vastly oversimplify the results vs. spending as well, and the positive results of charter schools. Those schools select who they admit, for one. I could find you the right group of students and only have them wear uniforms and have great results too. Charter schools are not well regulated and don't always have success rates better than the public schools.
My father's answer was that it is not a new idea (he'd heard of it 15 years ago) and didn't have a problem with it but had not heard much about it being particularly advantageous (but could see how there could be some benefit) -- said it struck him as an idea that had some merit but that the results might have just been Hawthorne Effect. He said the max he'd heard was 2 years though and that some teacher are better at teaching a grade level than others (other teachers and other grade levels) so something like a 5 year spread would probably bother people. He also commented on personality difficulties between a particular teacher and a particular student possibly being an issue. Didn't sound like something either side had proposed though... but he works in a middle class suburb of NYC that I believe does reasonably well so there's no problem looking to be solved there.
But it simply isn't true. The politicians are too far removed from any school system to have any sizable effect. I would say unscientifically that the vast majority of the time in situations like you've described in my home state (NJ), the argument simply isn't true. First of all, protections against layoffs are generally unenforceable anyway as layoffs due to the financial situation are generally regarded as management rights. Secondly, there is generally no reason to believe that giving up a perk will have the desired result in the first place. This may be how these things make it to the news, but talk to a school board member or a teacher who follows these kinds of things and you will see it isn't true.
In my own case, I work for a public medical university. Our appropriations have been cut nearly every year for years. The bills still need to be paid, and generally the first place the management goes after is the employees (even before going after waste or unnecessary spending). It does not matter that they're ultimately beholden to the state and the taxpayers, and the politicians have no noticeable impact. Management of the university tries the same old "what are you gonna do, there's no money?" every year, regardless of whether or not there is any. So I'm not seeing this major influence that public sector employees allegedly have over the process...
What I do see is monied interests who would like all unions to be a non-issue, and public sector unions are almost the last stand. Playing up the impact has caused people to clamor for weakening of already weak public sector unions, which is good for businessmen (but not good for business as if no one can buy anything, that windfall is short lived).
If my fire department is/run/ -- not ran -- by libertarians, I likely have the choice of having my apartment building burn down because no one felt like paying for any of the equipment because it was more important for them to be able to choose not to than it was to figure out what was necessary. The first engine to the scene plan is moronic, BTW. What happens if you need more than one? What happens if there's traffic on the route between house A and the fire but not house B? Essential services are not something that the free market morons should be getting anywhere near.
Yeah, because I didn't attend a real four year college with lectures or anything. Somehow I'm not even as smart as someone who can't even spell, judging from your post history.
Unions tend to fight back against things hardest that are done without asking them/negotiating. It is normally reasonable to ask a teacher what they think as they do it for a living. My dad's a teacher and president of a teacher's union -- I suppose I could ask him.
I'm not missing the point. The fact remains that it is bad for people and bad for the economy. And your comparison is a red herring. Private schools you're comparing to or what? Teachers make very little money, and paying a couple of thousand for health care isn't easy to compensate for.
Because I don't make a habit of "educating" myself will bullshit, instead opting for fact-based materials (whether or not they happen to agree with me).
A contract is a document negotiated by both sides and is quite capitalist in nature. What way would you have it exactly? School district does what it wants, no matter what the teachers were led to believe? Do they not have contracts where you work?
Or not a selfish asshole. If you think you have to be stupid, uneducated, or a crook to do anything other than think of yourself, you sir are a sociopath.
I don't think anyone would disparage a teacher for wanting to be a teacher. What is unsavory here on their part is the killing of the presumed dream of inexpensive education for all. And them doing it not for some higher moral purpose but for nothing more than self preservation.
Un-preserved teachers cannot do what they do... and really, many/most teachers can't take much less income without being in poverty. How often does cheaper educator labor result in tuition declines anyway?
Why then in general do you not support unions. These are the principles that all basically swear to uphold (whether or not they all actually do so is another matter).
1) You pay the organization because they are the ones that fought for the conditions of that job. It also would not work if people took a free ride but still received the benefits.
2) Union dues do NOT go to fund candidates. Voluntary donations are used to cover those -- by law, in my state.
They need union protections for the same reason any employee does -- unfair treatment by bosses, etc. You also have in a higher-ed setting angry students who were failed for not doing the work and then complain to the school as if it were the educator's problem. This doesn't work if the educator has a decent boss, but if not...? Why don't you see the need for unions in the public sector? Why, because the benevolent public will of course be fair to the employees? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
As I said, I'm in a public sector union and I did try to refute it -- it isn't true. I also know from my father that teachers unions do not have a tremendous amount of power, and that politicians do not enter into it. Perhaps that's different in NYC, but it is not the case in NJ. There are politicians that are in support of unions, but most politicians EVERYWHERE are paid off by business and that is generally diametrically opposed to unions.
You vastly oversimplify the results vs. spending as well, and the positive results of charter schools. Those schools select who they admit, for one. I could find you the right group of students and only have them wear uniforms and have great results too. Charter schools are not well regulated and don't always have success rates better than the public schools.
My father's answer was that it is not a new idea (he'd heard of it 15 years ago) and didn't have a problem with it but had not heard much about it being particularly advantageous (but could see how there could be some benefit) -- said it struck him as an idea that had some merit but that the results might have just been Hawthorne Effect. He said the max he'd heard was 2 years though and that some teacher are better at teaching a grade level than others (other teachers and other grade levels) so something like a 5 year spread would probably bother people. He also commented on personality difficulties between a particular teacher and a particular student possibly being an issue. Didn't sound like something either side had proposed though... but he works in a middle class suburb of NYC that I believe does reasonably well so there's no problem looking to be solved there.
But it simply isn't true. The politicians are too far removed from any school system to have any sizable effect. I would say unscientifically that the vast majority of the time in situations like you've described in my home state (NJ), the argument simply isn't true. First of all, protections against layoffs are generally unenforceable anyway as layoffs due to the financial situation are generally regarded as management rights. Secondly, there is generally no reason to believe that giving up a perk will have the desired result in the first place. This may be how these things make it to the news, but talk to a school board member or a teacher who follows these kinds of things and you will see it isn't true.
In my own case, I work for a public medical university. Our appropriations have been cut nearly every year for years. The bills still need to be paid, and generally the first place the management goes after is the employees (even before going after waste or unnecessary spending). It does not matter that they're ultimately beholden to the state and the taxpayers, and the politicians have no noticeable impact. Management of the university tries the same old "what are you gonna do, there's no money?" every year, regardless of whether or not there is any. So I'm not seeing this major influence that public sector employees allegedly have over the process...
What I do see is monied interests who would like all unions to be a non-issue, and public sector unions are almost the last stand. Playing up the impact has caused people to clamor for weakening of already weak public sector unions, which is good for businessmen (but not good for business as if no one can buy anything, that windfall is short lived).
Do you have a link to any studies? I Google'd a little and can't get the terms right.
If my fire department is /run/ -- not ran -- by libertarians, I likely have the choice of having my apartment building burn down because no one felt like paying for any of the equipment because it was more important for them to be able to choose not to than it was to figure out what was necessary. The first engine to the scene plan is moronic, BTW. What happens if you need more than one? What happens if there's traffic on the route between house A and the fire but not house B? Essential services are not something that the free market morons should be getting anywhere near.
Alright, I have no idea what definition you're using for either one, so I honestly can't say.
What do you know about firing a teacher exactly?
Yeah, because I didn't attend a real four year college with lectures or anything. Somehow I'm not even as smart as someone who can't even spell, judging from your post history.
Unions tend to fight back against things hardest that are done without asking them/negotiating. It is normally reasonable to ask a teacher what they think as they do it for a living. My dad's a teacher and president of a teacher's union -- I suppose I could ask him.
I'm not missing the point. The fact remains that it is bad for people and bad for the economy. And your comparison is a red herring. Private schools you're comparing to or what? Teachers make very little money, and paying a couple of thousand for health care isn't easy to compensate for.
It does matter which school.
Because I don't make a habit of "educating" myself will bullshit, instead opting for fact-based materials (whether or not they happen to agree with me).
A contract is a document negotiated by both sides and is quite capitalist in nature. What way would you have it exactly? School district does what it wants, no matter what the teachers were led to believe? Do they not have contracts where you work?
They're also volunteer, and the only fire department many areas have.
Or not a selfish asshole. If you think you have to be stupid, uneducated, or a crook to do anything other than think of yourself, you sir are a sociopath.
Agreed. "Union smack talk?" Way to professionally report the issues.
What horseshit. Did you even attend college? Which one?
Libertarian = Selfish Republican asshole who doesn't want anyone to tell him what to do EVER.
That's all it is. Me first, mine, deal with it yourself. May you be bless with a Libertarian-run volunteer fire department.
Is that the way you think it should be for everyone? What kind of society is that?
Apparently those people don't need to eat 'cuz they're inferior anyway.
Who are you calling barely proficient exactly?
I don't think anyone would disparage a teacher for wanting to be a teacher. What is unsavory here on their part is the killing of the presumed dream of inexpensive education for all. And them doing it not for some higher moral purpose but for nothing more than self preservation.
Un-preserved teachers cannot do what they do... and really, many/most teachers can't take much less income without being in poverty. How often does cheaper educator labor result in tuition declines anyway?
If you can't figure any difference between an online course and those you attended, you went to the wrong school.
Why then in general do you not support unions. These are the principles that all basically swear to uphold (whether or not they all actually do so is another matter).
You're ignorant however:
1) You pay the organization because they are the ones that fought for the conditions of that job. It also would not work if people took a free ride but still received the benefits.
2) Union dues do NOT go to fund candidates. Voluntary donations are used to cover those -- by law, in my state.
They need union protections for the same reason any employee does -- unfair treatment by bosses, etc. You also have in a higher-ed setting angry students who were failed for not doing the work and then complain to the school as if it were the educator's problem. This doesn't work if the educator has a decent boss, but if not...? Why don't you see the need for unions in the public sector? Why, because the benevolent public will of course be fair to the employees? I don't think so.